[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3307995.stm

Muslim girls in France are set to find out if they are likely to be banned from wearing headscarves in schools.

An official commission headed by former minister Bernard Stasi will publish its findings on the issue on Thursday.

French President Jacques Chirac will then have to decide whether to follow the commission's recommendation.

The issue has proved highly divisive, after a number of high-profile cases where children have been sent home from school for wearing scarves.

Mr Stasi has consulted a wide cross-section of public opinion, including teachers, religious leaders, sociologists and politicians.

We cannot accept ostentatious signs of religious proselytism, whatever the religion

French public life has a strong secular tradition which has existed since the revolution, but the commission will now recommend whether to enshrine the plan in law.

Mr Chirac has hinted that he could back a formal ban.

Last week he said France felt "in a certain way under attack as result of the display of ostentatious religious signs, which is totally contrary to its secular tradition".

He added: "We cannot accept ostentatious signs of religious proselytism, whatever the religion."

...

France's chief rabbi, Joseph Sitruk, has joined Christian churches in arguing against a ban.

"What an aberration it is to want to muzzle religion in the name of secularism," he said in a newspaper interview.

More than 60 prominent French women, including Isabelle Adjani and fashion designer Sonia Rykiel, have backed a campaign by Elle magazine to ban what they called a "visible symbol of the submission of women".

Well, this has to be one of the most ****ing stupid pieces of potential legislation I've heard in recent times.

"...under attack as result of the display of ostentatious religious signs..."? WTF?!? If you feel "under attack" from a bunch of Muslim girls armed with headscarves - then I'm sorry, no amount of intrusive legal remedy is going to help you out.

Understandably, several non-Muslim religious leaders are upset by these moves - most notably, France's chief rabbi, as featured in this Haaretz article: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...&listSrc=Y. The overwhelming feeling in the Jewish, Christian and, presumably, other religious communities, appears to be: "we could be next".

Even if the ban doesn't go ahead, doesn't the fact that it has even been brought up and debated hint at a much deeper social problem?

Can anyone see any logical reasoning behind this?

[Troll]

It's not as simple an issue as it appears from this article. You need to follow the French news to really understand the debate. The State has obligations under French law; obligations founded in a long history of battling for the protection of human rights. Obligations to create a specific kind of French society; namely one that respects the complete separation of church and state and one that supports equal rights. I'm not sticking up for the ban mind you.

As to the first point, since the French revolution French schools have been secular institutions. They fought hard to diminish the importance of the Catholic church and they attach value to their secularism The concern here is that the wearing of headscarves for religious reasons is a religious act. The State thinks that not only might it be failing to comply with its obligations under the law but it might need to allow all kinds of religious expression in schools and other state institutions if it allows this. If headscarves, why not burkas. That said, if yalkmukahs are allowed, why not headscarves?

Secondly, many see the wearing of a headscarf by children as a violation of their rights in itself. Many see the requirement that women cover themselves in this way to be discriminatory to women and they believe that the state should not participate in the reinforcement of something that French mores consider an undesirable social practice. I don't think that there is any arguing that the view of certain islamic groups of the role of the women is very different from that of the average French person. These kids possibly need the state to tell them that they don't have to be muslims if they don't want to be.

I personally think you should live and let live. Let them wear headscarves if they wish. Let them wear their Stars of David and their crosses, and their Metallica T-Shirts but that should be where it stops. I think that prayers should not be allowed at public schools (public schools in the US sense not the UK sense); that preaching their religion should not be allowed at public schools and that there should be no accomodations made in the curriculum for special religious groups (these are all demands that have been made). If people want to follow their religious practices during school hours, then they need to go to private schools (again, in the US sense).

[Spliffdaddy]

Once again, France takes the lead.

But nobody's racing.

[Millennium]

There are plenty of people who say that if something causes no harm to others, then it should not be a crime.

Then they move to create laws which would force some people to violate some of the most basic tenets of their religions, even when keeping those tenets would cause no harm to others. Who is harmed by a headscarf, or a single student dashing off a quick -often halfhearted- private prayer before an exam? No one is.

Methinks I spy hypocrisy in the French government, if this is true. At the very least, this violates any concept of the separation of church and state, because it restricts harmless practices.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once again, France takes the lead.

Actually, there's been similar controversy in Germany for a while now.

It started off a few years ago when courts moved that crosses had to be removed from Bavarian classrooms due to separation of church and state.

Shortly thereafter, a Muslim schoolteacher was suspended in Baden-Württemberg for the same reason (she refused to remove her scarf).

I haven't heard of students having problems here, though.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There are plenty of people who say that if something causes no harm to others, then it should not be a crime.

The problem is that this could be seen to cause harm in that, inter alia:

1) it is a practice that is discriminatory against women;
2) it implicates the state in religion in that it requires the state to legitimise certain practices in the name of religion and not others.

Besides which, the ban is not aimed at muslims. It is aimed at ALL "overt" religious symbols.

[voodoo]

OK can anyone explane how scarfs are religous symbols

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
1) it is a practice that is discriminatory against women;

Is it? I wonder. I'm not a Muslim, and certainly I find the practice distasteful, but if someone chooses to wear hijab then who am I or anyone else -even a democratically-elected majority- to stop them? I repeat: who is harmed by a woman wearing hijab, distasteful though the practice might seem to you or me?

2) it implicates the state in religion in that it requires the state to legitimise certain practices in the name of religion and not others.

But the state is essentially doing this with the law anyway.

This is why I believe that, from a religious standpoint, governments should simply be agnostic.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voodoo:
OK can anyone explane how scarfs are religous symbols

This is another problem. Some women wear shawls for no religious reason whatsoever -occasionally my wife will war one when it's windy, and she's not a Muslim either- and yet these might easily be mistaken for hijab.

What do you do in a case like this? If you say that this is OK, then the law is totally invalid, because there's no way to tell hijab from a non-religious shawl, and therefore the law is unenforceable. If, on the other hand, you decide to ban non-religious shawls as well, then you're dealing with what amounts to a sumptuary law. That ridiculous concept was done away with in the West several hundred years ago.

Someone did bring up an interesting question: if not hijab, then why not a chador (the garment common in Saudi Arabia and a few other places, which leaves the face and hands uncovered) or even a burqua (the garment from Afghanistan, which completely veils the wearer)? I ask you this: when was the last time you saw one of these garments outside of the nations where they are common? Although these garments do qualify as kinds of hijab, they are in no way required by Islam; these came about through other cultural concerns. These are not religious garments, and so while it is still ridiculous to ban them (again, it amounts to a sumptuary law), they in no way fall under the same category as a simple shawl.

[voodoo]

On discrimination:

If muslim women are required to wear the scarfs but not men it is discrimination. Clear and simple as that. Now I don't know the laws in France or how this affects anything but discrimination it IS.

If western women were *forced* to cover their breasts in public for instance it IS discrimination if men don't have to do so in public. Nevermind your preceived notions of etiquette and customs. They don't enter into it.

If both women and men were wearing the scarfs in question there would be no discrimination. Follow?

[Developer]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:

That's a private school.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Is it? I wonder. I'm not a Muslim, and certainly I find the practice distasteful, but if someone chooses to wear hijab then who am I or anyone else -even a democratically-elected majority- to stop them?

This law applies to school-going children only afaik (although it would make sense to apply it to the teachers too). Children aren't capable of making a decision as to which faith they follow themselves. In France, as in most civil law countries and many common law countries, the state is the ultimate guardian of all minors. Clearly these girls did not wake up one day and say, "I am a female; therefore I should cover my head." I actually do find this requirement discriminatory although I have heard conflicting motivations for the head covering requirement. If a child really wants to wear its religion(s) on its sleeve and if a parent wants to bring their kid up in a particular religion, then they should do it in a private school.

Originally posted by Millennium:
But the state is essentially doing this with the law anyway.

This is why I believe that, from a religious standpoint, governments should simply be agnostic.

This is not a new law. The law guaranteeing that all state institutions are secular is from 1905. Currently the state is entitled legally to exclude students who display overt religious symbols from attending state schools. The whole point of the law is to keep the state agnostic. By allowing NO religious symbols whatsoever, I don't see how the state is legitimising certain religious practices and not others.

[Millennium]

Clearly these girls did not wake up one day and say, "I am a female; therefore I should cover my head." I actually do find this requirement discriminatory although I have heard conflicting motivations for the head covering requirement.

Actually, I think I just realized something. You may be under the impression that Islam does not have a dress code for men; if you believe this, then you are mistaken. Islam imposes standards of dress on both men and women. In the West we don't often hear about the male side of this dress code, perhaps because it doesn't look as "strange" to our culture, but it is very much there.

It is not generally considered socially acceptable for a man to wear a skirt in public. Even in countries where kilts on men are a part of the culture, they are not often seen except on special occasions or men who fill a specific position. Is this -that men should not wear skirts- not discriminatory against men, just as the Islamic dress code -which states that women should wear hijab- is (so you claim) discriminatory against women?

This is what cultural relativism is all about, folks.

If a child really wants to wear its religion(s) on its sleeve and if a parent wants to bring their kid up in a particular religion, then they should do it in a private school.

Why should a religious upbringing mean that a child is denied the services of the state? If the state is to provide services to its people, then should those services not be available to all people, regardless of whether or not they are religious?

The whole point of the law is to keep the state agnostic.

No, the law keeps the state atheist, not agnostic. An agnostic state would not interfere with the religious practices of anyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof, provided that those practices do not directly cause harm to anybody else. Wearing a religious symbol is, if anything, one of those "victimless crimes" that people seem so keen on legalizing.

By allowing NO religious symbols whatsoever, I don't see how the state is legitimising certain religious practices and not others.

Some religious symbols are practical to hide, such as a crucifix or a pentacle work around the neck. Even most religious tattoos can be covered up. For other equivalent symbols of faith, however, such as yarmulkes or hijab, hiding the symbol is impractical at best, and may even violate the religion's beliefs on how the symbol should be worn. Ergo, this is discriminatory against faiths which use such symbols.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:

It is not generally considered socially acceptable for a man to wear a skirt in public. Even in countries where kilts on men are a part of the culture, they are not often seen except on special occasions or men who fill a specific position. Is this -that men should not wear skirts- not discriminatory against men, just as the Islamic dress code -which states that women should wear hijab- is (so you claim) discriminatory against women?

No no no!

While it is unusual for men or boys to wear a skirt in public *they can if they so wish* so there is NO real (only perceived) discrimination against men in skirts. (Yeah laugh it up but there you go - men with earrings, men with colored hair, men with make up etc have probably all been laughed at by 'normal' people but now it is quite acceptable) The discrimination is not only in what you CAN do but also in what YOU CAN'T do.

Women CAN'T become fighter pilots: discrimination. Because they can really become fighter pilots.

If the muslim girls are MADE to wear the scarfs then it is discrimination. If they chose to then it IS NOT. Know the difference.

diclaimer:
I don't know how the situation is actually in France and these were just hypothetical musings.

[voodoo]

BTW no one has explained why the scarfs are a religous symbol and why only women have to wear them if they are. What is the male religious symbol?

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
BTW no one has explained why the scarfs are a religous symbol and why only women have to wear them if they are. What is the male religious symbol?

From my knowledge of islam, the headscarf has very little(nothing) to do with islam. Islam teaches that people should dress in a modest and appropriate manner. In the middle-east the scarfs have certainly been worn for longer than Islam has been around. So IMO the scarf has more to do with old customs than with the religion.

I have yet to find anything in the Quran that says otherwise.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is another problem. Some women wear shawls for no religious reason whatsoever -occasionally my wife will war one when it's windy, and she's not a Muslim either- and yet these might easily be mistaken for hijab.

I think there was an issue of the students refusing to take is off during PE (think swimming lessons for instance), AND IN classes. It is just a tradition in France that you take off your hat when inside a building, or for that matter in school. Kids are not supposed to wear hats or caps or anything else for that matter in classes in school. So if it's windy outside, fine, wear a scarf, but it's not windy inside...

Besides, as it has been said above, there is a strong tradition of eradicating anything related to religion in public shcools in FRance. You will NOT find ANYWHERE a cross in a public school. Religion has no place in education.

villa

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Logic:
From my knowledge of islam, the headscarf has very little(nothing) to do with islam. Islam teaches that people should dress in a modest and appropriate manner. In the middle-east the scarfs have certainly been worn for longer than Islam has been around. So IMO the scarf has more to do with old customs than with the religion.

I have yet to find anything in the Quran that says otherwise.

That is what I thought.. but I know you are a neophyte muslim, but if you are right then the French don't have a leg to stand on if they think this is religous.

Can France be WRONG?

<cue spliffdaddy>

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voodoo:
BTW no one has explained why the scarfs are a religous symbol and why only women have to wear them if they are. What is the male religious symbol?

I will leave others to address this, but it should be noted that if the scarves are not a religious symbol, then they cannot be an "ostentatious religious symbol", and therefore France cannot ban them as such. They will have to find some other reasoning.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by villalobos:
It is just a tradition in France that you take off your hat when inside a building, or for that matter in school. Kids are not supposed to wear hats or caps or anything else for that matter in classes in school. So if it's windy outside, fine, wear a scarf, but it's not windy inside...

If that's the case then a headscarf would indeed be considered rude, but last I checked you couldn't legislate courtesy any more than you could morality.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I will leave others to address this, but it should be noted that if the scarves are not a religious symbol, then they cannot be an "ostentatious religious symbol", and therefore France cannot ban them as such. They will have to find some other reasoning.

Yes that was my reasoning too.

Still I'd like to know more about this issue before forming any kind of opinion of it.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once again, France takes the lead.

But nobody's racing.

SILLY! YOU HAD A HEAD START!!!

[Wiskedjak]

Is not clothing, in general, a Christian symbol? Don't Christians clothe themselves because of the shame Adam and Eve felt when they fell from God's grace?

Genesis 2:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voodoo:
If the muslim girls are MADE to wear the scarfs then it is discrimination. If they chose to then it IS NOT. Know the difference.

Is that necessarily wrong?

If you listen to many Muslim leaders, we in the West are mistreating our women, by allowing them to go out unprotected "amidst the wolves", so to speak. You mention women not being able to be fighter pilots; to many people from Muslim nations, it would be a horrible abuse of a woman to put her into a fighter plane. To people from these regions, war is a terrible business, something that only men should be forced to suffer.

I do not believe these things; in a way you could say I'm playing Devil's Advocate. My actual motivations behind this, however, are to speak from a relativist standpoint. Many Muslims -particularly those who wear hijab- would say that they are not discriminating against women at all; indeed, they would say that we are the ones who are guilty of violating a woman's human rights.

And if you really think about it, who are we to say that they are wrong? We often say that 'we hold these truths to be self-evident' without really understanding what that means. 'Self-evident' does not mean obvious. It means that something is true by the simple fact that it is true; the ultimate in circular logic. When the Framers wrote this, it was a great triumph for the separation of Church and State, because it meant that basic human rights did not depend on the existence of any kind of higher power; they were there because they were there. Some of the less literate pseudo-Christian fundamentalists will say that the separation of church and state was never written into the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution: in fact they are, and the concept's introduction is in that very phrase.

But if you really sit down and think about it, is that really any better than a religion which states that a higher power exists because it exists? Is forcing women to not wear hijab really any better than forcing them to wear it? Who are we to say what is right, when our concept of human rights is based on a foundation which is exactly as shaky as theirs, both being based on the logical fallacy of self-evidence?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
if the scarves are not a religious symbol, then they cannot be an "ostentatious religious symbol", and therefore France cannot ban them as such. They will have to find some other reasoning.

I don't think that argument works because the way I understand the problem, the kids were told that the school dress code bans the wearing of hats of any description in school. The girls responded by saying it was a religious symbol and they should be exempt. The schools referred to the 1905 law and sent 4 girls home. The Muslim community made a stink. The government decided to deal with the Muslim community's problems by referring this to committee. The committee reccomended to enforce a ban.

This is not about headscarves people; it's about all religious symbols which makes this an even more difficult issue. The problem for me is that I don't see any middle ground here. I can't see how the state can allow some symbols without getting involved in religious affairs. Which means either it allows anything (including some rather offensive "religious" symbols(after all who decides what qualifies as a religion) or it allows none at all. I suppose then the schools might have to deal with kids refusing to remove Swastikas because they're religious symbols and other behaviour that is clearly anti-social and unworthy of state support.

I tend to think banning it all is a better option than allowing it all or making value judgements. School is a place for learning. There's time to express yourself religiously and explore other religions outside of school.

And that without even talking about which religious symbols actually have wider social impacts like discriminating against women.

None of which is to say that I come to that conclusion easily. I grew up in a jewish neighbourhood and went to a public school where 90% of the boys wore yarmies. Although some of the kids felt a little excluded from the club of "chosen people", it rarely caused problems and the parents were happy knowing their kids were being good jews. The kids themselves didn't even notice the things. The problem is I make a value judgment when I say judaism is a harmless religion. I wouldn't want the state making those kinds of judgments.

[lil'babykitten]

Well, this is certainly the stupidest story I have read today.

A few things about the role of the scarf in Islam first.
Islamic teachings encourage women and men to behave and dress modestly. It does not specifically state that women must cover their hair, it does not give anyone the power to force women to wear it, nor will women find themselves in hell for failing to cover their hair! The scarf has been around for a long long time. Many Muslim women wear the scarf because it is one method by which one can protect themselves from 'a mans gaze'. The main idea behind this idea of modesty in Islam, in the case of the woman, is so a man does not become interested in her solely because of her appearance.

If a woman wears the scarf she is not being discriminated against. The majority of Muslim women wear the scarf because they want to . So many people like to tell them they are oppressed despite the fact that these women do not regard themselves as being oppressed at all!
Yes, there are examples of situations where women have been and are forced by the state (or family, etc) to wear the scarf or cover up completely. These cases are simply un-Islamic and are not derived from any teachings in the Quran.

I think someone earlier mentioned young girls who wear the scarf. If born in to a fully Islamic household (by that I mean where both parents are practicing Muslims) the child is undoubtedly going to be in an environment whereby he/she is taught Islam at a very early age. Maybe at this stage they are not given a 'choice' but in my experience, kids like to 'follow their parents'. I have observed how children in the mosque prefer to mimic their parents actions during prayer for example, rather than watch. I hope you can see what I mean here! Therefore the wearing of the scarf is second to nature to them. While at an early age girls may not understand exactly why they are wearing the scarf, in most cases, they are not forced to wear it either. When they are older they are likely to continue to want to wear it, particularly when they understand the reasoning behind it. If not, then they should have the choice in wether they want to wear it or not.

As for religious symbolism, Islam has none. That is nothing specific is mentioned in the Quran. People associate scarfs with Islam because it is normally muslims who wear it. But it is not strictly a 'symbol' of Islam. The Star and Crescent is more of a symbol than the scarf. (Notice how the kitten in my sig is not wearing a scarf ) This is where the French proposals start to lose ground, but there is a more important argument to be made.

The State has the obligation to grant all it's citizens their individual freedoms. One of those is the freedom to practice religion. If the French go ahead with these plans, they will be direct violation of people's freedoms. This will be cause of great concern and unrest.
I really don't see how girls wearing a scarf in school is a threat to the Secular State.
I sincerely hope this gets no further.

[Sven G]

Cultural relativism = the other side of the coin of cultural absolutism.

There has to be a reasoned balance: in our western world, we cannot ignore the secularization process and the "fall of the gods" - otherwise, it's only hypocrisy.

That said, of course the state (or any other authoritarian institution) shouldn't have the power to "ban" anything that isn't directly dangerous: so the attempt to prohibit something rather harmless in a changing cultural context is, of course, nonsense (IMHO).

The problem is that in our postmodern society there isn't almost any attempt, anymore, at synthesizing cultures towards a broader goal of liberty and equality: so the net result, when anyone goes in a different direction, is zero.

In other words, we haven't yet been able to transcend "our" secularization process - by this, also going "against history", as happens in revolutionary moments, for example, - and thus the situation seems to be stuck at the current mediocre level...

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you listen to many Muslim leaders, we in the West are mistreating our women, by allowing them to go out unprotected "amidst the wolves", so to speak. You mention women not being able to be fighter pilots; to many people from Muslim nations, it would be a horrible abuse of a woman to put her into a fighter plane. To people from these regions, war is a terrible business, something that only men should be forced to suffer.

I'm all for tolerance. I think the lack of tolerance in the world is one of the biggest problems we have. But there is a huge difference between tolerating someone else's behaviour in their own corner of the world and putting up with something that you find abhorrent and that is illegal in the name of tolerance. I don't care what my neighbour's view is on dogs sh1tting on the sidewalk. I find that behaviour abhorrent and there are laws against it and I do not consider myself intolerant for insisting that he comply.

There are certain minimum standards for everything. At some point we have to draw a line and say that we are not going to accept certain kinds of behaviour. Each society has to draw that line itself. In France that line is drawn somewhere above equal rights for women and no religion in schools. French people believe that differentiating girls from boys at school and allowing religious differentiation at school is harmful to society. And they feel that as long as Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses and Scientologists choose to benefit from state largesse in France, the French government is entitled to require that they respect French societal values. If they don't like those values then they can refuse the largesse (create their own schools) or move somewhere else. I believe the same applies to French women who go and live in Saudia Arabia. As long as they want to live there, they should cover up and respect the local traditions. That is an aspect of tolerance too.

That doesn't answer the question as to what to do in this case however, because I myself don't find the head scarf and any of the issues areound it to be abhorrent. I can, however, understand the state's reluctance to undo their old laws because once they start saying that scarves are actually not too bad, where do they stop?

[villalobos]

The religious character of the headscarf (called tchador also?) was actually given by the students themselves, and their parents, and some muslim activists. The government did not decide they were religious symbols, it was an excuse given by the girls themselves.... I see quite a few people here do not know the ins and outs of the issue, as usual on this board .

Villa

[eklipse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
As for religious symbolism, Islam has none. That is nothing specific is mentioned in the Quran. People associate scarfs with Islam because it is normally muslims who wear it. But it is not strictly a 'symbol' of Islam. The Star and Crescent is more of a symbol than the scarf. (Notice how the kitten in my sig is not wearing a scarf ).....

[voodoo]

Troll you have my 100% utmost agreement!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm all for tolerance. I think the lack of tolerance in the world is one of the biggest problems we have. But there is a huge difference between tolerating someone else's behaviour in their own corner of the world and putting up with something that you find abhorrent and that is illegal in the name of tolerance. I don't care what my neighbour's view is on dogs sh1tting on the sidewalk. I find that behaviour abhorrent and there are laws against it and I do not consider myself intolerant for insisting that he comply.

If your neighbor's dog "sh1ts" on the sidewalk, you have a case for environmental harm, not to mention a potential health risk. There is harm done there.

I repeat, who is harmed by a headscarf?

And they feel that as long as Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses and Scientologists choose to benefit from state largesse in France, the French government is entitled to require that they respect French societal values.

Respecting another's values is quite different from embracing them as one's own.

If they don't like those values...

Note that you said like here, not respect; you seem to understand that there is a fundamental difference.

What France is requiring is not respecting a given set of values; it's requiring adherence to a specific set of values.

I believe the same applies to French women who go and live in Saudia Arabia. As long as they want to live there, they should cover up and respect the local traditions. That is an aspect of tolerance too.

Yes, it is true of French women in Saudi Arabia, and it is just as intolerant there. In general, the burden is on the host to tolerate the guest, rather than the other way around, is it not?

I can, however, understand the state's reluctance to undo their old laws because once they start saying that scarves are actually not too bad, where do they stop?

A slippery slope argument? Both liberals and conservatives have their logical fallacies, but the slippery slope isn't one often heard from liberals; that is typically conservative territory. It's illogical, all the same.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If your neighbor's dog "sh1ts" on the sidewalk, you have a case for environmental harm, not to mention a potential health risk. There is harm done there.

Funny, I had precisely that argument with a neighbour a few nights ago. He thought that even if I actually stepped in it, it was just "merde" and there was no harm done .

As for the headscarf not doing any harm, I specifically said that *I* don't see any harm done there but I also pointed out the harm that French people do think is done. It's a harm that they fought against for many years. The 1905 law is the culmination of centuries of battle to free French civil society from the influence of religion, specifically the Catholic church. I don't think that you or I, as non Frenchmen, can understand how deep this sentiment runs or how deeply the French value protecting young kids from subtle gender discrimination for that matter. The headscarf as a piece of cloth is no more dangerous than the Swastika as a piece of cloth. It's what it stands for that offends and in France, the values that the headscarf represent are indeed considered harmful. I don't think there is anything wrong with a society protecting itself from things it defines as harmful particularly when it is in the form of an opt-in. That is, particularly when religious types aren't forced to go to state schools and "suffer" under French values for the duration of the school day.

Originally posted by Millennium:
What France is requiring is not respecting a given set of values; it's requiring adherence to a specific set of values.

Which is what all states do; require adherence to a specific set of values.

I'm not sure I understand how your solution works practically. You seem to be saying that only practices that are harmful should be banned. You don't say how we determine what is harmful and don't seem to accept that the population itself alone, by passing laws, should determine something to be harmful. You don't say how you make that determination while maintaining a separation of church and state.

How does the state decide what religious practices are "harmful" without endorsing one religion over another? The only way I can see your solution working is if the State sets up a commission to officially recognise religions and then another to check which religious practices are harmful and which should be allowed in schools. Is that what you propose because if it is then I think the rabbis and immans should have a far bigger problem with that state of affairs than they do with the current system of no "official" religions in schools.

If this is not a typical liberal argument then don't perhaps I'm not a liberal.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
There are certain minimum standards for everything. At some point we have to draw a line and say that we are not going to accept certain kinds of behaviour. Each society has to draw that line itself. In France that line is drawn somewhere above equal rights for women and no religion in schools. French people believe that differentiating girls from boys at school and allowing religious differentiation at school is harmful to society.

This doesn't make sense to me - at least not within the context of this particular issue. How can one defend peoples rights by infringing upon them? Wearing a headscarf does not detract from a woman's rights - it is her choice to do so; wearing a headscarf is not a religious requirement or even a religious icon - it is a custom or 'fashion'. If France is trying to remove this kind of distinction and self-identity from it's society it is essentially trying to get men and women to think and act exactly the same. This is a futile endeavor.

And they feel that as long as Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Jehovas Witnesses and Scientologists choose to benefit from state largesse in France, the French government is entitled to require that they respect French societal values. If they don't like those values then they can refuse the largesse (create their own schools) or move somewhere else.

Unless I'm mistaken, these Muslims (and Jews, Catholics etc.) are French - 'French' and 'Muslim' are not mutually-exclusive terms. A spiritual French person should have just as much right to live in France and practice his or her sub-cultural customs as any other citizen holding a French passport. Telling them: 'if you don't like it, leave' is essentially kicking them out of their own country.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Unless I'm mistaken, these Muslims (and Jews, Catholics etc.) are French - 'French' and 'Muslim' are not mutually-exclusive terms. A spiritual French person should have just as much right to live in France and practice his or her sub-cultural customs as any other citizen holding a French passport. Telling them: 'if you don't like it, leave' is essentially kicking them out of their own country."


whoa. I agree with eklipse.

That's never happened before.

I must have fallen asleep with my neck at an awkward angle - and cut off blood circulation to my brain for several hours.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I must have fallen asleep with my neck at an awkward angle - and cut off blood circulation to my brain for several hours.

....or opened the blood circulation.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
Funny, I had precisely that argument with a neighbour a few nights ago. He thought that even if I actually stepped in it, it was just "merde" and there was no harm done .

And you can back up your claim of harm with facts. The French cannot.

I don't think that you or I, as non Frenchmen, can understand how deep this sentiment runs...

"How deep the hate runs", you mean. Because that's what it is, plain and simple: hate. The very thing they claim to fight, and they turn out to be as guilty as anyone else.

That is, particularly when religious types aren't forced to go to state schools and "suffer" under French values for the duration of the school day.

The alternative is to pay tuition fees for a private school, while still paying taxes to fund services that you are denied, all on account of your religious beliefs.

Which is what all states do; require adherence to a specific set of values.

Yes, and states are under obligation to only do so when harm can be shown and backed up with facts. No harm can be shown here. No state has always lived up to this ideal, of course, but that does not make it good, right, or tolerant.

I'm not sure I understand how your solution works practically. You seem to be saying that only practices that are harmful should be banned. You don't say how we determine what is harmful and don't seem to accept that the population itself alone, by passing laws, should determine something to be harmful.
You don't say how you make that determination while maintaining a separation of church and state.

We have a decent system of showing how people have harmed others: we call it a court. Hold customs up to a similar system; show evidence and provide facts that a custom necessarily and inherently causes direct harm, be it physical or financial, to someone other than the one who practices such a custom.

Surely this could be done in an agnostic manner, could it not? The courts do it all the time.

How does the state decide what religious practices are "harmful" without endorsing one religion over another?

Examine customs both inside and outside the context of the religion in question. Have strong advocates for both sides brought into play; examing at the absolute least the perspectives of a believer, an agnostic, and a non-believer. Only if harm can be found in all three perspectives, as found by a panel made up once again of these perspectives, which must agree unanimously for harm to be found, can any belief or custom be prohibited by law. Granted, this will only wind up with the most extreme practices -such as human sacrifice- being prohibited. But that is as it should be.
[quote]The only way I can see your solution working is if the State sets up a commission to officially recognise religions and then another to check which religious practices are harmful and which should be allowed in schools.

Is that what you propose because if it is then I think the rabbis and immans should have a far bigger problem with that state of affairs than they do with the current system of no "official" religions in schools.

When the rabbis and imams have a guaranteed right to be able to defend their customs as they choose, and a guaranteed right to practice any belief and custom as long as a panel (call it a jury if you want) of believers, agnostics, and non-believers can unanimously agree, I don't think they will have as much of a problem as you say.

A large part of why the rabbis and imams have trouble with things such as this is that they have no say, no representation, in what is forbidden or why. Give them such a say -with proper checks and balances to ensure that the separation of church and state remains intact- and you remove the problem.

[zigzag]

Great thread - not a single-name calling incident, lots of excellent points on both sides, I've learned a good deal.

It might be worth noting that the French seem to be generally fearful about the growth of the Muslim immigrant population. Is this an expression of that anxiety, or is it a more isolated issue?

I suppose that if you extend the "cultural relativism" argument to its logical conclusion, you could argue that the French have the right to maintain their traditional culture and protect it from disruptive influences. After all, didn't they try to ban certain English words? It seems silly and provincial but who's to say that they don't have the right? "If you want to be a French citizen and avail yourself of the benefits of the French state, you must adhere to its standards and traditions, aesthetic as well as political. That includes the avoidance in public institutions of clothing associated with specific religions." I'm not sure of the answer, just posing the question.

It brings to mind an incident we had in the States - a Muslim woman (in fact, an American woman who married a Muslim man) - refused to remove her headwear for her drivers license photo, citing religious freedom. The state denied her a license and the courts upheld it, saying that the public safety interest outweighed the religious interest, and that a license was a privilege, not a right. Can the same be said about French public schools? I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

Of course, being the States, odds are that the couple has since divorced and the woman has started a promising career as a lap dancer.

I think Millennium raises a great point about how a given practice can have positive or negative connotations depending on the cultural perspective. Westerners regard headgear as a symbol of oppression, Muslims might regard it as a symbol of dignity and respect. We have similar debates within Western culture - one feminist sees porn as oppressive and misogynist, another feminist sees it as liberating and enabling. You have to be careful about generalizing.

I like vmpaul's philosophy: "Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile away from them and will have their shoes."

[vmpaul]

That's why my ears were burning.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Besides, as it has been said above, there is a strong tradition of eradicating anything related to religion in public shcools in FRance. You will NOT find ANYWHERE a cross in a public school. Religion has no place in education.

villa

What if a kid is wearing the cross, are the officials going to take it away from them?

If so, then France is due for another revolution. Obviously the last one didn't hold too well.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Unless I'm mistaken, these Muslims (and Jews, Catholics etc.) are French - 'French' and 'Muslim' are not mutually-exclusive terms. A spiritual French person should have just as much right to live in France and practice his or her sub-cultural customs as any other citizen holding a French passport. Telling them: 'if you don't like it, leave' is essentially kicking them out of their own country."


whoa. I agree with eklipse.

That's never happened before.

I must have fallen asleep with my neck at an awkward angle - and cut off blood circulation to my brain for several hours.

Bloody hell! The French have caused Spliffdaddy and eklipse to agree... That proves beyond ANY doubt that the French are wrong. What are we gonna see next, Hillary Clinton swapping spit with Limbaugh!?!

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What if a kid is wearing the cross, are the officials going to take it away from them?

No. The way I understand it wearing a large, overt cross is not allowed at a French school. The school can't take it away but they can exclude you from the school until you stop wearing it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What are we gonna see next, Hillary Clinton swapping spit with Limbaugh!?!

Thank you. I needed that mental image. I really did.
[/sarcasm]

[voodoo]

Group A want's to wear symbols in school.

French school system opposes of it and cites regulations gainst gang/group colors/symbols in school.

Group A says they symbols are religous in nature and therefore they must be allowed to wear them.

French school system points out the seperation between church and state is in full effect since 1905 and that is that.

Group A cries discrimination.

-- yet this applies to all kinds of religous groups => no discrimination.

I fully symphatize the French state's position on this if I understand the situation right. They've got laws against this and if French citizens (Group A or otherwise) want to change the laws there are proper channels to do that through. Going nuts won't help anyone. IMO.

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
This doesn't make sense to me - at least not within the context of this particular issue. How can one defend peoples rights by infringing upon them? Wearing a headscarf does not detract from a woman's rights - it is her choice to do so; wearing a headscarf is not a religious requirement or even a religious icon - it is a custom or 'fashion'. If France is trying to remove this kind of distinction and self-identity from it's society it is essentially trying to get men and women to think and act exactly the same. This is a futile endeavor.

All I'm saying is that it's not as clear-cut as many people think. I certainly would not like to be Mr. Stasi!

To be clear though, this is not about WOMEN making decisions for themselves about wearing headscarves in French SOCIETY as you put it. It is about MINORS wearing religious symbols at SCHOOL. The children want to be exempted from French laws that have been around for 100 years. The kids themselves raised this not as a fashion question but as a religious question and that was precisley the mistake. Becuase the French are far more open to challenges to fashion than they are to challenges of the centuries-old separation of church and state. Treating people exceptionally, differentiating them from other schoolchildren either on the basis of religion or gender (which is inevitable I guess) is something that French society (taken as a whole) apparently considers harmful within the school context.

I think you're right that they are trying to get people to think in the same way at least as far as the role of religion in state-sponsored education is concerned but as I said that is what every state does? Every state has minimum standards of behaviour that it expects from its citizenry. People who refuse to buy into the values that the state holds are excluded from the society. I say buy into, but what I really mean is that a state will not "tolerate" behaviour that it finds harmful to society. This was my earlier point. That advocating tolerance is fine and dandy, but not everything can be tolerated. If, as it appears from the 1905 law, that we're dealing with non-negotiables here, then it isn't a question of tolerance.

If you want evidence of the harm that is caused by mixing religion and government (and schooling) you need look no further than France. Religion has had a profound and dangerous effect in France. That harm has to be balanced against the harm that results from restricting people's right to exercise their religion. The question boils down to whether restricting the exercise of religion at schools is a justifiable limitation in light of the obligation to separate church and state and prevent discrimination. The balance will lie in different places for different people. Which is precisely why I say that I think ultimately the only way to be fair is to allow everything or nothing. It all really depends on which of the competing values the society thinks should trump. Evidently French people think it acceptable to limit the practice of religion at school to protect the other social goods that they value. I don't have the same history of religious persecution that they do, so for me perhaps the balance lies elsewhere.

Originally posted by eklipse:
Unless I'm mistaken, these Muslims (and Jews, Catholics etc.) are French - 'French' and 'Muslim' are not mutually-exclusive terms. A spiritual French person should have just as much right to live in France and practice his or her sub-cultural customs as any other citizen holding a French passport. Telling them: 'if you don't like it, leave' is essentially kicking them out of their own country.

I didn't say that they are not French. What I said was that they need to respect French societal values; one of the central ones being that France is secular. Being French doesn't mean you agree with all of the values that the state structures embody. A French person cannot however sit in his own country and do something that the rest of the country considers incompatible with their values. Such a person must accept that if they fail to comply with the societal values that they get excluded from the society in one way or another - whether it be the school denying them access or being sent to jail. I'm not suggesting deporting French citizens. I'm merely saying that if they want the state to allow them to practice their religions at school then what they really need is a different kind of state to the secular one France offers. Either they alter the one they have or they look elsewhere for a state that has similar values already.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes, and states are under obligation to only do so when harm can be shown and backed up with facts. No harm can be shown here. No state has always lived up to this ideal, of course, but that does not make it good, right, or tolerant.

Harm can be shown here. There is a law against this behaviour. That, in itself, is evidence of harm no? The society saw fit to legislate against this behaviour because it identified a harm.

Sure that identification might be wrong. The thing is this isn't black and white. The kids are free to practice their religion any time, any place except in a state school during school hours. Tough finding a balance if you ask me and France has taken one approach to achieving that balance which is as good as any.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
Harm can be shown here. There is a law against this behaviour. That, in itself, is evidence of harm no?

Not by any means. There are many laws against such "victimless crimes" in France and in other places. The US has its own share of such laws, and those laws are also unjust.

The society saw fit to legislate against this behaviour because it identified a harm.

Society also saw fit to burn witches in Salem; does this mean they were right to do so? Or that any real witches which might have existed at the time actually were harming people?

No. Society is just as fallible as any other human, and no more fit to determine right or wrong when harm cannot be proven.

Sure that identification might be wrong.

Which is precisely why a more rigorous system of harm-identification needs to be devised.

Tough finding a balance if you ask me and France has taken one approach to achieving that balance which is as good as any

There is no balance to be found here. When you cannot practice your religion in ways where no harm to others can be proven, at any time you wish, your freedom of religion has been unjustly infringed upon. Not all things are black and white, but human rights are. If human rights are not absolute, then they are meaningless, because any number of abuses could be devised and justified simply by effective rationalization.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
All I'm saying is that it's not as clear-cut as many people think.

I'd say that human rights are very clear-cut.

To be clear though, this is not about WOMEN making decisions for themselves about wearing headscarves in French SOCIETY as you put it.

Actually, it would be about this as well, because this would apply to more than just schools.

The children want to be exempted from French laws that have been around for 100 years.

No, they want the laws repealed as unjust.

Becuase the French are far more open to challenges to fashion than they are to challenges of the centuries-old separation of church and state.

But this is not an issue of the separation of church and state, it is an issue of religious freedom. There is a very important and fairly clear-cut difference between "not supporting religious practices" and "forbidding religious practices".

I think you're right that they are trying to get people to think in the same way at least as far as the role of religion in state-sponsored education is concerned but as I said that is what every state does?
Every state has minimum standards of behaviour that it expects from its citizenry. People who refuse to buy into the values that the state holds are excluded from the society.

To some extent, that is unavoidable. This is why the litmus test of "proving direct harm" is so important: to ensure that this is kept to an absolute minimum.

I say buy into, but what I really mean is that a state will not "tolerate" behaviour that it finds harmful to society.

There is no such thing as "harmful to society". Only people can be harmed.

If you want evidence of the harm that is caused by mixing religion and government (and schooling) you need look no further than France. Religion has had a profound and dangerous effect in France.

Indeed? Show me this harm, then. Show me how it continues to have this "profound and dangerous" effect, even to this day.

Which is precisely why I say that I think ultimately the only way to be fair is to allow everything or nothing.

We almost agree here; I simply believe that there is one fewer fair choice than you do.

I didn't say that they are not French. What I said was that they need to respect French societal values; one of the central ones being that France is secular.

Except that that isn't what's being required. They are being required to embrace the societal value that France is atheist. There is a difference between respect and embracing, and there is a difference between secular and atheist.

I have nothing against atheism as a belief system, save that I don't agree with it. But this is an attempt to force that belief system onto people.

Being French doesn't mean you agree with all of the values that the state structures embody.

Go tell that to their linguists; they could use a dose of this as well.

A French person cannot however sit in his own country and do something that the rest of the country considers incompatible with their values.

Sure he can, as long as he harms no one.

I'm merely saying that if they want the state to allow them to practice their religions at school then what they really need is a different kind of state to the secular one France offers.

You're right; what they need is a real secular state, one which doesn't care where you practice your religion as long as you harm no one in the process.

I like your idea of "being excluded from the school or going to jail", however. If this is passed, I hope there is massive civil disobedience, and I hope people get sent to prison for it. That, perhaps, will expose this injustice for what it really is, and get this law repealed.

Neither you nor I want Muslims to be treated any differently from anyone else. You call for a law to be enforced equally among all people. I call for its complete repeal as unjust, which again affects all people equally. We're not really so different, you and I; our means and definitions may be different but our goal -equality for all people- is basically the same.